Originally Posted by HPIC (Post 3335950)

It’s cargo. Nobody cares about cargo planes….until they ball up in a populated area and kill a bunch of people on the ground.

Just wait. When cargo planes are automated and pilots removed(we all know cargo planes will be the first)..and then they start crashing due to automation failure…then people will start caring.

Originally Posted by dera (Post 3335959)

Cargo planes might as well be first (I disagree though, pax ops always adopt new technology first but that's another discussion), but it sure as hell won't be Ameriflight who is the front runner with this.

Originally Posted by TorqueWrench (Post 3336006)

Everyone who says cargo will be last because they have the oldest fleets and buy used airplanes. Why do you think they do that? Obviously because it’s cheaper for them to buy used WBs.

If the bean counters at FDX and UPS determine that these reduced pilot ops work and can save on labor costs, then you can bet they’ll be first. At least with pax airlines, they have to convince the traveling public that having no pilot is safe.

Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 3336009)

FDX and UPS are currently buying brand new, 90s era technology 767, 777 and 747s which will soldier on in service for 3-4 decades.

Following 737 MAX and Malaysian 370, does anybody actually think autonomous or even reduced crew/remote piloted widebodies flying are neigh? UPS couldn’t get the classic round dial engine instruments and CRT ECAM of the A300 replaced with new LCD screens because the FAA was going to require a new type rating for that. They’re just gonna up and approve the HAL 9000 now?

A simple glance at an MEL shows how operationally restrictive such operations would be to the focus of making service.

Will it happen? Maybe, eventually…when its 1. Operationally reliable 2. Publicly accepted 3. Regulatory approved 4. Cheaper. That said, industry is yet to coming close to fully autonomous driving in two dimensions and that third is even trickier.

We shouldn’t put our heads in the sand about the inevitability…but the threat to any current professional cargo pilot’s career is grossly overblown by attention-drawing clickbait headlines IMO.

Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 3336009)

We shouldn’t put our heads in the sand about the inevitability…but the threat to any current professional cargo pilot’s career is grossly overblown by attention-drawing clickbait headlines IMO.

Originally Posted by HPIC (Post 3333200)

I assume you’re referring to the Skylease 747-400 in Nov 2018. Had the crew used auto land, the landing distance would have likely been increased by 1,000ft…per the autoland performance calculation requirements. How would this have helped?

The problem was that after touchdown, the #1 thrust lever was advanced to a position that disabled the auto brakes and auto speed brakes and the thrust reversers were not utilized correctly. The end result was a severe lack of deceleration that caused them to run off the end of the runway. Of course, the lateral drift on touchdown and rollout didn’t help the situation…and perhaps autoland would have remedied that…but I seriously doubt it would have prevented the overrun.

There were a lot of poor choices made…but I don’t think that utilizing an autoland would have resulted in a better outcome. The thrust levers are still controlled solely by the PF after touchdown and would likely have resulted in a similar end result.

Originally Posted by C17B74 (Post 3334031)

Not an obsession as both Boeing and Airbus have designed/debuted aircraft of of significant autonomous capabilities and Cathay and a few others are delving into long haul crews being reduced from 4 to 3, focus on just 2 pilots remaining up front when phasing in automation in the right seat. 797 before it was scrapped/shelved due to CVD19 had the box in the right seat variant for single pilot ops. (Doesn’t necessarily mean just one pilot, just one sitting up front - bunk right behind to include lav within the confines of the flight deck like several aircraft already have in cargo land.) It will be a step by step process that companies including Fred Smith have invested millions in. Down to 2 pilots or even 1 if regulators agree still keeps a body for blame/insurance purposes. Although not an issue for myself with just over a decade left, 0 pilots is a different story and probably way off I hope. Thankfully I have traveled enough - if no pilot, then I ain’t riding as I believe in “skin in the game.” Regarding Trains - they can have track mismanagement, but can just stop if needed…

Do agree the large ship program hasn’t established transatlantic/transpacific standard ops as of yet. Definitely not a high congestion issue compared to aviation but: A 262ft autonomous electric container ship is already tested/running around Norway, by no means transatlantic, yet…. (Probably battery limited, solar panels in the Southern Regions? Hmmm) In 2016 U.S. Navy launched an autonomous small vessel from Hawaii to the mainland with an observation crew for test purposes. Same platform is now being expanded beyond roles of submarine warfare to create the U.S Navy “Ghost Fleet.” Pretty sure their requirements will be more robust than a large cargo vessel just cruising in open water with no strategic/tactical value. Tech is already there, just a matter of phasing out old hulls for new ones. Small number of ships compared to aircraft on a daily basis shows no need to have an accelerated program when using crew requirement comparisons worldwide.

Not advocating, just being aware is everything.

Originally Posted by Hawkerdriver1 (Post 3336302)

Auto land with flaps s full instead of 25 would have shortened the landing distance some 700+ feet. Not being high or fast, with auto land, would also have shortened the landing distance still further.

The very firm & not longitudinally straight touchdown would not have occurred with auto land either. The advancement of #1 throttle likely being the unintended consequence of it.